Letters to the Editor: Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Tuesday

Dec 10, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Is it time to replace Adrian’s maple logo? ... ‘Canned preserve’ is not real hunting

Is it time to replace Adrian’s maple logo?

To the editor,I start picking at things with sarcastic, incisive logic when I get too sleep-deprived. While running on three hours of sleep one day, Adrian’s maple leaf logo popped up into my head. Apparently there are a lot of maple trees in town, but I hadn’t noticed since I don’t usually stop to look at trees until the storm damage has hit and I am driving in front of them.

The idea of a maple leaf simply doesn’t make sense in its representation of local demographics. Foilage doesn’t seem representative of anything except fossils, and in some cases, Libertarians. And my idea seems a more adequate portrayal of the state of the city than a dark, seasonal appendage that wasn’t even valuable enough to eat during The Great Depression (maple syrup comes from the trunk).

My idea for a new logo would include a glass of beer, a lit cigarette, a Bible and a cheeseburger. It might seem more likely that folks in their late 40s would use these objects to morph into The Retired Power Rangers than that they’d represent a town. But I would argue that they are local representations.

According to whitepages.com, there are 46 churches in Adrian that I could be kicked out of for choreographing a lightsaber battle, and there are so many restaurants that learning their various scents could eventually allow blind people to drive. And, for what appears to be such a conservative city, the present logo seems like an overlooked sympathizing with Canada; which, hedonism tends to follow guilt. In closing I think it would be more interesting if towns used symbols which represented the people living in them.

Charles WolfAdrian

‘Canned preserve’ is not real hunting

To the editor,In regards to the article in the Sunday Telegram about the canned hunting preserve (“ ‘The full experience:’ Whitetail Acres celebrates 15 years”) I cannot understand how anyone could consider this a sport instead of outright slaughter of trophy animals.

The article states that, “Though the ranch’s acreage is contained...it does not make the hunt any easier.” A few sentences later the article states, “Most of them get two deer. We don’t want anyone to leave here unhappy.” Hunters can even take advantage of a heated, enclosed tree stand. Sounds like a good place for lazy, rich people who don’t want to put much effort into the “experience”; just a nice, easy kill and voilà, you have a beautiful trophy to take home and brag about.

It is interesting that one of the purposes of the canned hunting ranch is to provide a “safe place” for hunters. Is this implying that it’s NOT safe to be in the woods during hunting season with your fellow hunters?

Since the people participating in canned hunting cannot trot out the usual excuses for killing deer, such as car collisions, crop damage, etc., what reason do they have to do this? The thrill of killing an animal that cannot escape, bred for no purpose other than to become a target? I bet it’s an expensive way to “put food on the table.”